|Authored by: PolR on Sunday, July 22 2012 @ 04:10 PM EDT|
|I like this idea. A computer is like a Thermo flask. You don't make a new Thermo|
flask put putting iced tea in it instead of hot tea. Similarly you don't make a
new computer by putting software in it.
Notice that this comparison says nothing about the patentability of software. It
can still be claimed as a process without going against this argument. It just
says that no new machine is made.
In particular this refutes the notion that the unprogrammed computer is useless.
The computer has a utility similar to a Thermo flask. You can put software in
it. Then if people try to argue a computer can't do text processing without a
program they will have to explain why this is different from saying a Thermo
flask can't keep iced tea cold without iced tea in it. And if people try to
argue that putting the software in the computer improves the computer they will
have to explain why this is different from arguing putting iced tea in a Thermo
flask is an improvement over a Thermo flask without ice tea.
This is the difficulty in trying to argue a new machine is made without a
showing that a structural change to the machine is made. The words are losing
their definitional anchors. We no longer know what is a new function of the
machine or an improvement to the machine when we don't have the ability to tie
these notions with machine structure.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]